30 성경원문연구제 24 호별책 Translation Strategies and Annotation Policies in two Maltese: Translations of Romans 3:1 8 Anthony Abela* 1. Preliminaries In this paper, the present writer means to study the contribution of the two main Bible translators of the twentieth century, Mgr. Prof. Peter Paul Saydon (1895 1969) and Mgr. Prof. Carmel Sant (1912 1992). The biography of these scholars has not been undertaken yet, and therefore the present writer cannot refer the readers of this paper to such publications; such biographies need to be written. Concerning the former, the monograph by Carmel Bezzina, Saydon Biblista u Studju\ tal Malti 1) in part fills this gap. But to the knowledge of the present writer, nothing or little has been written on the second. This study forms part of a wider project, that of taking the cue from Mgr. Prof. Arthur Bonnici s paper The Church and the Freedom of the Press in Malta 2) and Mgr. Prof. Peter Paul Saydon s own contribution to the history of Bible Translation in Maltese, his monograph, History of the Maltese Bible 3), and Prof. Sant own papers gathered in his monograph Bible Translation and Language 4) under the editorship of the present writer, and rewrite this history after due appreciation of the contribution of each translator to this translation tradition. 5) In this essay we shall review both the translation strategies of the two * UBS Europ and the Middle East Area Translation Consultant, Part-time Prefessor of University of Malta. 1) Pubblikazzjoni Preca, Malta 2006. 2) Melita Historica, 2 (1957), 105 121. In this regard one should visit also his two other works, his pamphlet Church and State In Malta 1800 1850, Malta 1958 and his article Protestant Propaganda in Malta 1800 1830, Melita Theologica XIII (1961), 6 64. 3) Malta 1957. This work has been republished by the present writer as an appendix in Carmel Sant s Bible Translation and Language, Malta 1992, 267 284. 4) Melita Theologica Supplementary Series, 2; Malta 1992. 5) The present writer acknowledges the influence of Rev Prof. Carlo Buzzetti s monograph Traduzione e Tradizione. La Via dell Uso Confronto, Edizioni Messagero, Padova 2001, on the present author s formulation of this concept, translation tradition history in Maltese.
Translation Strategies and Annotation Policies in two Maltese / Anthony Abela 31 translators as they worked on this text as well as their annotation policies. The latter often reflects the translation strategies adopted by the translator, and in many ways they are two aspects of the same reality, and complement each other. The reader would naturally ask how the present writer has arrived to the identification of 3:1 8 as a literary unit that may be isolated from its surroundings. As one would expect, the markers of delimitation and composition of the global literary unit which is the letter itself, the Letter to the Romans, 6) are not external to the literary composition itself, they are linguistic features which are made to play a rhetorical function. 7) This textual extension has been form critically defined as a diatribe, a dialogical form of argumentation developed by ancient teachers in the Cynic schools of philosophy. It was a pedagogical discourse conducted in a lively debate and in familiar conversational style with an interlocutor. It was peppered with apostrophes, proverbs and maxims, rhetorical questions, paradoxes, short statements, parodies, fictitious speeches, antitheses, and parallel phrases. 8) The linguistic markers employed by Paul to delimit his discourse here include the interrogative particle τí followed by the conjunction ο ν which is described as inferential and mainly transitional 9) : What then? used in vv.1 and 9 where it marks the beginning of new paragraphs within the same discourse, and the adverb of time νυνì said to be further morphologically emphasized by the addition of the demonstrative suffix ι 10) and followed by the particle δè Now, then which is parsed as introducing a new section (3:21 4:25)within the letter after a general introduction (1:1 17), and a first part (1:18 3:20). 11) 6) For the use of epistles in the Biblical world, cfr. Harry Gamble, Letters in the New Testament and in the Greco Roman world, John Barton (ed.), The Biblical World, I (Routledge, London, 2001), 188 207 7) Roland Meynet s essay on the Relationships between linguistic Elements within a literary composition may be found useful. Cfr. Roland Meynet, Rhetorical Analysis. An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric, JSOT Supplementary Series 256 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 182 199. 8) Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, Anchor Bible, 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 91. 9) William F. Arndt & Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 597. 10) Ibid., 548. 11) Cfr. Barclay M. Newman & Eugene A. Nida, A Handbook on Paul s Letter to the Romans (New York: United Bible Societies, 1973), 64.
32 성경원문연구제 24 호별책 2. Romans 3:1 2 a) Paul opens his discussion in Romans 3 by allowing his imaginatory opponent to formulate an objection to his final statement in the previous literary unit (at vv. 2:27 28). If the real Jew is the one who is inwardly such (expressed negatively: ο ν τ φανερ ), and true circumcision is spiritual not carnal (περιτοµ καρδíας εν πνευµατι), what advantage is there in being an ethnic Jew? The interrogative particle τí syntactically linked to the nominal τò περισσòν is further qualified by the conjunction ο ν, defined by Johannes Louw and Eugene A. Nida as a marker of result, often implying the conclusion of a process of reasoning, so, so then, therefore, consequently, accordingly, then. 12) Versions and translations normally noticed and registered this link to what went before and at the same time the beginning of a new discussion. With 3:1 they normally start a new section, often marked also by a sub title, but they also mark the link to what goes before in the text. Then what advantage has the Jew? (NRSV, 1989); What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew? (NIV, 1984); Che cosa dunque ha in più il Giudeo? (LSB, 2008) 13). The opening objection of Paul s imaginary interlocutor within the letter and within this section is expressed in two parallel interrogative statements (v.1). One may speculate that the need of the second question: τíς φελεια της περιτοµ ς linked to the previous question by the disjunctive particle, or, was felt by the speaker himself because the first question could be felt to be ambiguous: τí ο ν τò περισσòν το Ιουδαíου: The two questions may be experienced as perfect parallels as the genitival expressions το Ιουδαíου and τ ς περιτοµ ς suggest. If the second question was supposed to clarify what the first question really meant, this was perhaps due to the ambiguity of the subject of the first question, περισσòν, which is the neuter nominative morphological form of the adjectival περισσος which 12) J. Louw and E. A. Nida, Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 1 (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 89:50. In this manner while for Paul s adversary Paul needs to return to his statement in 2:27 28. Paul sees this as a fitting introduction to the discussion he means to start in this chapter. 13) Abbreviations of Bible editions cited in this study: BE: La Bible Expliquée (2004); GNB: Gute Nachricht Bibel (1997); LSB: La Sacra Bibbia (2008); NBS: La Nouvelle Bible Segond (2002); REB: The Revised English Bible (1989).
Translation Strategies and Annotation Policies in two Maltese / Anthony Abela 33 according to Arndt & Gingrich, basically means exceeding the usual number or size (p.657). The word is often rendered as advantage or even privilege. The subject of the second question is the noun φελεια, sometimes written elsewhere φελíα, with the meaning use, gain, advantage ; usually it requires the genitive of the linguistic elements it governs as we see here, τ ς περιτοµ ς use of circumcision. This means therefore that the second question not only was supposed to make clear the first question, but it is also meant to narrow down the field of enquiry opened by the first question: the objector does not want Paul to discuss the advantages in general of being an ethnic Jew, but only the religious significance of being such; this religious aspect is represented by the issue of circumcision. E qual è l utilità della circoncisione?(lsb); Or what is the value of circumcision? (NRSV). Paul s answer to this double objection, originally was of one word: πολù, Much. But immediately he qualified his answer by an adverbial composite phrase, κατà πáντα τρóπον. The phrase κατà παντα is actually a fixed phrase meaning in all respects which is then further qualified by the noun τροπος in the accusative morphological form as it enters under the governship of the preposition κàτα: in every way. The phrase maintains its emphatic role. Paul foresaw no manner in which Judaism could be seen under any negative light. Paul then attempts to furnish the reader of his letter with motivations for his strong position; he initiates to describe a series of reasons, but in this paragraph he deals only with the first (πρ τον) reason why for him ethnic Jews have advantages over non Jews. The slight textual problems 14) to which the γαρ within the brackets give rise to, testify to the uneasiness of the author himself or of that of later copyists at the unsmooth ness of the sentence at this junction, as they felt this clause to be an explanation to the previous clause and hence in need of a causal link word to tie the forthcoming clause to the short general statement in verse 2. Probably the problem of the correctors of the manuscript was as to where to put the conjunction γαρ, especially in view of the presence in the text of anomalous µεν without the δé, for which reason it does not express contrast, and which could have been dropped by mistake or for some unknown 14) That were not worthy of note by the two standard textual commentaries, Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2 2000); and Roger L. Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006).
34 성경원문연구제 24 호별책 motivation, thus rendering the grammatical structure of the clause not completely clear. 15) For Paul, the first, or perhaps the main, reason which would give to the ethnic Jew s superiority over the non Jew is that τà λóγια το θεο have been entrusted ( πιστεúθησαν) to them. A few comments: 1) It would appear that the subject of this clause is τα λóγια, the plural nominative neuter of the noun τó λóγιον, which originally meant a short saying originating from a divinity. 16) What meant Paul by this word in this context? Authors differ on its precise meaning. 17) Did Paul mean the word of God in some form as it was still in oral form? Or did he mean what Christians now call the OT? Fitzmyer thinks this latter meaning is to be preferred. 18) However, the phrase itself does not make it clear at what stage of the traditional and redactional development the OT was by the time of Paul. 19) Paul seems to be referring to the presence of the Word of God within the history of the Jewish people, whatever the form it may have reached in his time, and which was available in small and not so small manuscript forms which could be used by his addressees. 20) For Paul, the presence of such word of God gave the Jews a clear advantage over non Jews. 2.1. Romans 3:1 2 in Saydon and Sant s Translations There exist four editions of Peter Paul Saydon s Bible Translation: there is the manuscript version which is still in the responsibility of the Malta Bible Society but which will soon be transferred to the responsibility of MUSEUM; there are pamphlet formats of the first edition published between 1929 and 1959; there is the elegant three volume second edition published by Librerija Preca in 1977, 1982 and 1990 under the general editorship of Rev Carmel Attard; and the one 15) Cfr. F. Blass & A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 232 paragraph 447. 16) Arndt & Gingrich, Lexicon, 477. 17) Cfr. Fitzmyer, Romans, 326 327. 18) Ibid. 19) On this one may read Craig A. Evans, The Scriptures of Jesus and His Early Followers, Lee Martin Macdonald & James A. Sanders, (eds.), The Canon Debate (Massachusetts: Hendrickson, Peabody, 2002), 185 195. 20) The present author refers the reader to his short reflection in Short Exegetical Essays, 1: 2Tim 3:14 17, Melita Theologica 59/1 (2008) 37 44.
Translation Strategies and Annotation Policies in two Maltese / Anthony Abela 35 volume third edition also published by Librerija Preca in 1995. The present writer calls these different publications of the same Bible editions because in each there are differences from the other ones which make each of these versions unique in several ways. So we have three editions of Saydon s Bible beside the manuscript version. The changes made in each edition were meant mainly to make the text more user friendly with the readers of the late twentieth and the twenty first centuries. The Bible of the Malta Bible Society had a long history as well. This translation was begun in the late sixties, with the earliest texts being translated for direct use in the liturgy of the Catholic Church; then when the liturgical texts were finished in the early seventies, the team, under the chairmanship of Rev Prof. Carmel Sant who was then the General Secretary of the Malta Bible Society and the Dean of the Faculty of Theology, continued with the translation of the entire Bible. This Bible was then published for the first time in book form in 1984. In its Preface (p.xi) by Sant we are informed who prepared the first draft of the various books of the Bible; but the final draft which we read in the published text was then the fruit of the work of the team of those biblical scholars and linguists who remained with Sant till the end, and of Sant s editorial work. Sant is reputed to have prepared the first draft of Romans and hence we are attributing this translation to him although this text may have had a communitarian Redaktiongeschichte the reconstruction of which is for the time being beyond our means. For the Saydon version of the text of Romans we shall be using his first edition published in 1956 with the title L Ittri ta S. Pawl. L Ittra lir Rumani 21). As regards the translation, we shall not consult the later editions for the text; for the notes we may in part consult the second edition since there the notes were edited by Rev Fr Carmel Attard, and we need to distinguish Saydon s policy for annotation from the contribution of Rev Attard. In this section of the essay we shall describe and review the translation of both Saydon and Sant. For the latter s translation we shall employ the 1984 edition which had two further successors since then, in 1996 and in 2004, under the editorship of the present writer. The Malta Bible Society is currently publishing the Fourth Edition (possibly 2009). In our study we shall review the translation strategies of each translator, his choices of vocabulary and syntax, the strength 21) Malta: The Empire Press, 1956
36 성경원문연구제 24 호별책 as well as the weaknesses of the final text in each case. Saydon s rendering of the double question in Romans 3:1 is formal except for the constraints exercised by the receptor language. For instance, in the first question the subject is no longer the impersonal τò περισσòν but the Jew. Mela xinhu a]jar il Lhudi? In what way is the Jew better? He is better means for Saydon that he has advantages or privileges. Of course, the statement is interrogative. The second question is formally closer in syntax to the Greek: jew x fejda fih il ]tin? The clause opens with the conjunction jew, or that in the context introduces the second of the two alternative clauses, the second one being an explanation of the preceding alternative. 22) This second clause has both a syntactical subject, which is the interrogative pronoun xi prefixed to the noun fejda, advantage, and the noun il ]tin, literally the circumcision because in Maltese the article is obligatory unless the noun is supposed to be indefinite. The noun fejda derives from root FJD and the verb fied which carries three possible meanings: to contribute to one s advantage, to prove useful or lucrative; to leave a profit, to prove lucrative, useful; to overflow. 23) The first of the three meanings fit our context. The noun ]tin derives from the root }TN which appears fully in the lexeme ]aten that may be read both as a noun with the meaning of a kinsman or relative by marriage to the bride or bridegroom 24), or as a verb with the meaning of to circumcise. }tin or ]atna are the nouns from such root and verb, and mean circumcision. While the noun for a relative by marriage, in its various morphological forms, is relatively commonly used, ]tin for circumcision is barely used in modern Maltese, also because this operation is rarely made in Maltese culture unless it is medically required. And in such cases, the modern noun `irkon`i\joni, borrowed from Italian, is employed. The version of Prof. Carmel Sant differs from that of Saydon on a number of scores. One main difference concerns translating the singular το Ιουδαιο of the Jew by the communitarian the Jews : x g]andhom iktar il Lhud, what do Jews have more? Sant kept the same connective Mela of Saydon to link this new paragraph to the previous. Mela renders the conjunction ο ν but comes first in the clause. For the rendering of the adjective περισσòν Sant employs a different 22) Aquilina, Maltese English Dictionary, I, Midsea Books, Malta 1987, 599. 23) Ibid., 335. 24) Ibid., 519.
Translation Strategies and Annotation Policies in two Maltese / Anthony Abela 37 verbal structure. Instead of the existential clause x inhu a]jar il Lhudi, in what way is the Jew better? Sant employs a construction made up of the preposition g]and + the possessive suffixes here the third masculine plural hom, and means among other things, to have, possess. Prof. Aquilina cites this idiomatic sentence: g]andi ktieb li inti m g]andekx b]alu, I have got a book the like of which you have not got. 25) In our text the verb is governed by the interrogative pronoun x 26) Iktar or aktar is the comparative of an unused adjective katir from the verbal root kotor, to abound, increase. 27) Here it is used as a substantive: What more do the Jews have? It is very difficult to say which of the two constructions, Saydon s or Sant s, is better. Probably Sant s version is better understood by modern Maltese speakers although Saydon s constitutes good classical Maltese. The second colon of this verse is rendered as follows in Sant s version: jew x tiswielhom i` `ikon`i\joni? Here we have the linking word jew as in Saydon s and the interrogative pronoun x. Sant translates the noun φéλια by the verb tiswielhom which is a complex form of the verb sewa that basically means to cost, to be worth so much but which idiomatically covers a number of other shades of meaning. 28) Two of these probably fit our text: to cost in terms of result, consequences : il [lieda switilna reb]a, the fight brought us victory ; to be useful, l omm id dar tiswa ]afna, a mother is very useful in her home. These two nuances probably both fit our text but the first may be closer to what Paul meant. One should note that Sant does not use the nominal ]tin for circumcision but the modern noun `irkon`i\joni, in Maltese orthography, of course, and the article. 29) (1) Verse 2: The answer to the general question(v.2) in verse 1 is translated by Saydon and Sant in almost identical manner: }afna b kull mod (Saydon); }afna u b kull mod (Sant). Apparently, the only difference between the two translations is the addition of the conjunction u in Sant s rendering. But the addition of this 25) Maltese English Dictionary, II, 967. 26) Cfr. Cremona, Tag]lim fuq il Kitba Maltija, 221. 27) Aquilina, Maltese English Dictionary, I, 693 694. 28) Ibid., II, 1300 1311. 29) For the colouring of the article s [l] as [`] cfr. Cremona, Tag]lim, 212, paragraph 503.
38 성경원문연구제 24 호별책 conjunction in Sant s version means that while for Saydon the adverbal phrase κατà πáντα τρòπον stands in apposition to the adverbial πολù, in Sant s version it is parsed as a second alternative answer. Sant intensifies the answer in two ways. Circumcision was not simply useful for the Jew (this is what the Greek original and Saydon s translation imply). Sant s rendering implies that circumcision was not simply very useful, but also very useful in many dimensions. In Saydon the second intensification is included in, and explains the first intensification. In Sant s, the second intensification constitutes a second idea. The fact that in Greek the phrase κατà πáντα τρòπον stands in apposition to πολù, makes Saydon s parsing and translation more precise and probably closer to the Greek text. The explicative part of Paul s answer (v.3b) is introduced in Greek by the adverbial phrase πρ τον µèν which both Saydon and Sant rendered by an adverb in Maltese: l ewwelnett, (Saydon), qabel xejn 30), (Sant). The two adverbial phrases may be considered as synonyms 31) with the meaning first of all even if they may not be totally synonymous, as the second may also mean above all. Romans 3:2 is one of those texts where Paul begins with π τον µèν without continuing the series. 32) If this was a conscious use of the construction, the adverb was meant to emphasise the contents introduced rather than to enumerate the series of the elements. What characterises the Jewish people for Paul was the presence of the λóγια το θεο translated as it ta]bir ta Alla(Saydon), l orakli ta Alla (Sant). A few comments on Saydon s and Sant s translation of the clause πρ τον µèν γàρ τι πιστεúθηαν τà λóγια το θεο. This causal clause has τà λóγια qualified by the genitival phrase το θεο for subject. Saydon rendered this headword by ta]bir while Sant chose the word orakli to render it in Maltese. According to B. Klappert 33) the lexeme τò λóγιον is the diminuitive of the adjectival λóγιος with the meaning formed, instructed and originally meant 30) According to the latest decisions of the National Council for the Maltese Language, these two words should now be written as one lexeme, qabelxejn, Il Kunsill Nazzjonali tal Ilsien Malti, It Triq lejn De`i\jonijiet dwar il Varjanti Ortografi`i, 1(25/7/2008), 15. 31) Cfr. Aquilina, Maltese English Dictionary, II, 1100. 32) Arndt & Gingrich, Lexicon, 733. 33) Logos in L. Coenen & E. Beyreuter & H. Bietenhard, (eds.), Dizionario dei Concetti Biblici del Nuovo Testamento, EDB, Bologna1976, 1175 1200, 1190.
Translation Strategies and Annotation Policies in two Maltese / Anthony Abela 39 short word, oracle. This in part accounts for Sant s choice of the word; he saw it as a technical term. But one should note that this word in Greek occurs only four times in the NT: Acts 7:38; Romans 3:2; Hebrew 5:12; 1Peter 4:11. A comparison between the ways the two translators deal with the phrase in these texts may give rise to some interesting observations: Saydon Sant Acts 7:38 kliem tal ]ajja kliem il ]ajja Rom 3:2 ta]bir orakli Heb 5:12 kelmiet ta Alla kelma ta Alla 1Pt 4:11 l kliem ta Alla l kliem ta Alla From this panorama it would appear that Sant followed closely the exegesis of Saydon at least in the translation of these texts, but then rendered slightly differently the verbatim rendering of his teacher. In Acts 7:38 Sant prefers the construct state to the genitive by the particle ta ; in Romans 3:2 Sant prefers the more recent orakli to the semitic ta]bir on the supposition that the former is better known, is technical, and is probably better understood by speakers of Maltese in the late twentieth century. In Hebrew 5:12 Sant opts for the singular kelma ta Alla to Saydon s plural kelmiet. In 1Peter 4:11 Sant s is a verbatim reconstruction of Saydon s, where this phrase is concerned. If it proves nothing else, Romans 3:2 shows clearly Sant s strategy vis à vis the text of his predecessor: at least in these four texts Prof. Sant adopted the exegesis of Prof. Saydon. But was this the better decision he could have made? The translation of the term τà λóγια by the term ta]bir is not without its problems. Saydon presumes that the noun derives from the verbal root of the II form ]abbar, to announce (good or bad news), foretell, proclaim. But according to Aquilina, the nominal ta]bir or te]bir is semantically narrower as it means presage, presentiment, premonition, foreboding, prediction, omen. 34) The nuance to announce is missing from this list. There exists instead a noun derived from the passive of the II form ]abbar, t]abbar, the nominal t]abbir, meaning announcing. 35) But it would seem that Saydon presumed his noun derives from the first root listed above. When we take the formal resemblance in 34) Maltese English Dictionary, I, 464. 35) Ibid., 465.
40 성경원문연구제 24 호별책 pronunciation between ta]bir and te]bir one immediately senses the danger in which Saydon leads his readers. Saydon would not have wanted to write that the advantage of the ethnic Jews was in that they were entrusted with the premonitions of God (see the note to verse 3). He meant to say announcements by ta]bir as the note to verse 2 shows: In their hands were entrusted the announcements by God not only the announcement of the Messiah, but all that there is in the OT: this is the mission of the Jewish people in God s work for our salvation. Saydon s text therefore proved to be ambiguous and this may explain Sant s departure from his policy of employing Saydon s vocabulary in his own translation. Instead of ta]bir ta Alla Sant renders the Greek phrase under study by l orakli ta Alla. But does orakli serves its purpose? The noun oraklu (singular) orakli (plural) hails into Maltese directly from Italian: oracolo, oracle 36), the first meaning of which, according to The New Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus 37) is a prophecy revealed through the medium of a priest or a priestess at the shrine of a god, while the subsequent meanings involve the shrine and the person through whom the prophecy is given. In Maltese, the term oraklu seems to apply mainly to the person who is responsible for the saying rather to the saying itself. Aquilina cites one saying to explain what this word means in Maltese: Meta jitkellem ]uk, qisu qed jitkellem l oraklu ( when your brother speaks he does so with the authority of an oracle ). Besides, when this meaning of orakli is applied to our text, the OT prophetical background needs to be taken into account. Unfortunately, we shall not be able to define better from this phrase alone the grade of development of the OT prophecy tradition meant by the writer. Does he mean the prophetical tradition in its oral stage alone, or in its oral together with the written stages of this tradition? In view of this difficulty of identifying the precise nuance of the lexeme λòγια, the present writer would prefer to translate the phrase τà λòγια το θεο in this text by il kelmiet ta Alla the words of God. The verbal element of the clause s predicate in Greek, the verb πιστεúθησαν, which is aorist passive of the verb πιστεúω creates a number of 36) According to Aquilina it was first registered as part of Maltese vocabulary by S. Mamo in his English Maltese Dictionary, Malta 1885. Cfr. Aquilina, Maltese English Dictionary, II, 1017. 37) Glasgow: Harper Collins Publishers, 1992, 696.
Translation Strategies and Annotation Policies in two Maltese / Anthony Abela 41 problems. Basically, this verb means to believe but a secondary meaning developed, to entrust. Which is the subject of the verb in this clause? Apparently, it has been taken by translation tradition, not only Maltese, to be the phrase τà λòγια το θεο : quidem quia credita sunt illis eloquia Dei (Vulgate); unto them were committed the oracles of God (NIV); a loro sono state affidate le parole di Dio (LSB); c'est à eux que les paroles de Dieu ont été confiées (NBS); God s messages were spoken to the Jews (CEV). Our two translations in Maltese followed this traditional parsing: Saydon: lilhom mer]i t ta]bir ta Alla; Sant: lilhom kienu fdati l orakli ta Alla. One should note though that Saydon s is a participial clause with the verbal element of the predicate expressed by the passive participle mer]i from the verb re]a which basically means to let go but it can also mean to leave something into someone s trust (er]i f idejja leave the matter into my hands ). This verb is used for the nuance entrusted only in certain contexts; but the present writer has some doubts whether this context where God entrusts his words to his own people would allow for the use of this verb. This exegesis had to provide the beneficiary of the action in the clause which the original in Greek was believed to have dropped as the context would make it easy to identify. But the dropping of the beneficiary, as well as the resilience of the verb πιστευω which allows the beneficiary to become the subject of the passive tense of the verb, made some translators think that an alternative parsing is not impossible. The Jews were entrusted with the word of God (NRSV). In this case, the subject is taken to have been encoded in Greek within the morphology of the passive verb επιστεúθησαν, but in translation it needs to be made explicit as in the NRSV text. Our two Maltese translators preferred to make explicit the beneficiary, lilhom, referring back to the Jews while the phrase τà λóγια το θεο is translated as the subject of the clause. Actually there exists another possibility: the verb fada to trust, show confidence in, to be sure of in Maltese allows for a syntactical construction very similar to what we have in Greek. The verb πιστευω in the passive carries the meaning of someone who has been entrusted with something by someone. In the First Letter of Clement we find the expression ο πιστευθèντες παρà θεο ργον τοιο το those who have been entrusted by God of such work. The participle πιστευθèντες governs the object 38) in the accusative ργον τοιο το.
42 성경원문연구제 24 호별책 In our text what is missing is the phrase who tells who entrusted the Jews with the word of God. It is dropped because this source of the privilege is clear enough and needs not to be stated. In Maltese we have the possibility of a similar structure. The verb fada allows the Jews to be the subject of the new clause where the verb remains passive but where the verb governs the object, which remains the phrase τà λóγια το θεο, il kelmiet ta Alla (where kelmiet is a plural of unities that may be counted 39) through a different preposition, bi. The subject has to be emphatic: huma kienu li [ew afdati bil kelmiet ta Alla: they were the ones who were entrusted with the words of God. In this manner, the focus remain the Jews and not the words of God which constitute the reason for saying that the Jews enjoyed an advantage other people did not have. 2.2. Saydon and Sant s Annotation policies for Romans 3:1 2 (1) Crude facts While Saydon introduced a note for each of verses 1 & 2, Sant allowed no notes at all for the entire chapter 3. How are we to explain this different behaviour between the two translators where annotation is concerned? Probably, this sharp difference in annotation, even with regards to these two verses depend upon the general policies which guided the two translators in their translation as a whole. In a general comment he wrote as introduction to his entire translation project, and which was published as Kelmtejn qabel, introduction, with the publication of the Genesis pamphlet in 1929, p.viii, Prof. Saydon explained his annotation policy: Biex il qari tal Kotba Mqaddsa jkun tal akbar fejda g]al kul]add, kemm ukoll biex in]ares tusijiet il Knisja, \idt f qieg] kull fa``ata tifsir \g]ir, kemm jen]tie[ biex wie]ed jaqra u jifhem. Qeg]idt ukoll quddiem kull wie]ed mill kotba mad]al \g]ir, biex nuri min kiteb dak il ktieb u f liema \mien kitbu, u fuqxiex jit]addet il ktieb. B hekk aktar in]affef ftehim il ktieb, So that the reading of the Holy Scriptures be useful to one and all, as also to follow the instructions of the Church, I added at the bottom of 38) Arndt & Gingrich, Lexicon, 667. 39) Cfr. Cremona, Tag]lim fuq il Kitba Maltija, 182 183.
Translation Strategies and Annotation Policies in two Maltese / Anthony Abela 43 each page short notes, as much as were necessary so that one reads and understands. Before every book I wrote also a short introduction, in which I show who wrote that book and in which age he wrote it, as well as what the contents of the book are. This was meant to add to the understanding of the text. From this comment one may conclude that Saydon s notes were reader oriented : he wanted to make sure that his readers understand the text in the right manner. He mentions, besides, that this was the Church s policy and that he wrote these notes also to abide by this policy. One understands that his abiding by this policy was not merely formal. In compliance with this policy, Saydon wrote a note for every verse of Romans 3 although for verses 10 18 he also wrote a global note (likewise on vv. 25 26) before touching on every one of these verses (cfr. p.9). In the Pre\entazjoni to the 1984 edition of Il Bibbja (p.x), Prof. Sant described the annotation policy the translation team that catered for the edition followed: Da]]alna \ew[ xorta ta noti mfassla minni fil qosor kemm jista jkun: l ewwel introduzzjoni qasira g]al kull ktieb; u t tieni noti fil qieg] tal pa[na b tag]rif ta kritika testwali, [eografiku, arkeolo[iku, storiku, u teologiku Dawn in noti jservu biex jg]inu l qarrej isegwi r rakkont jew il ]sieb tal awtur sagru; ma kellna ebda ]sieb li niktbu kummentarju s]i]. We introduced two types of notes that were prepared by me; these notes were as short as possible. We wrote a short introduction to each book; secondly, we added at the bottom of each page notes with text critical, geographical, archaeological, historical and theological information. These notes serve to help the reader to follow the narrative or the thought of the sacred writer; we had no plan to write a complete commentary of the Bible. Prof. Sant informs readers that it was he himself who prepared these notes at the bottom of each page. These notes were text oriented, that is, were meant to help the text achieve the communication act it was meant to achieve but which would not have succeeded because of the time distance between it and the target audience of the translation. The notes provide supplementary information to the text of the translation which would thus ease its readability. The contents of
44 성경원문연구제 24 호별책 these notes may involve text critical, geographical, archaeological, historical, and theological information about parts of the text. The general editor of Il Bibbja made it clear that the team never meant to write a complete commentary of the text. Some general conclusions may be drawn about the two translations, concentrating on the text of Romans 3:1 2. Saydon s general policy forced him to enter a note on each of the two verses under study. On verse 1 he notes: Pawlu qal li pagan tajjeb a]jar minn Lhudi ]a\in. U madakollu l Lhud, b]ala poplu ta Alla, kellhom ]afna privile[[i. X jiswew dawn il privile[[i? Din hija l mistoqsija li Pawlu jist]ajjel mag]mula minn Lhudi milqut minn kliem Pawlu. Paul said that a good pagan was better than a bad Jew. And yet the Jews as the people of God had several privileges. What was the value of these privileges? This is the question that Paul imagines being put to him by some Jew who has been impressed by Paul s own words. On verse 2 he annotates: Pawlu jwie[eb: Il privile[[i tal Lhud jibqg]u. U fost dawn il privile[[i jsemmi wie]ed biss. F idejhom mer]i t ta]bir ta Alla li hu mhux biss it ta]bir tal Messija, imma kull ma hemm miktub fil Kotba tar Rabta l Qadima: hu l missjoni tal poplu Lhudi fl opra tal fidwa tag]na. Paul answers: the privileges of the Jews remain. And of these privileges he mentions only one. In their hands have been entrusted the announcements of God, not simply the announcement of the Messiah but all that is written in the Books of the Old Testament: it is the mission of the Jewish people in the work of our redemption. One should note here that: 1) That the note for verse 1 is rather a verbatim reformulation of the verse. The note for verse 2 contains more information than is contained in the verse itself: the meaning of ta]bir, announcements, which for Saydon is wider than what is meant by messianic prophecies. The word ta]bir, announcements comprised all that exists in the books of the Old Testament: it is the mission of the Jewish people in the work of our redemption. 2) Saydon therefore looks at the OT from the perspective of the OT
Translation Strategies and Annotation Policies in two Maltese / Anthony Abela 45 prophecy. 3) His notes are audience oriented in the sense he wants to ensure that the text of the translation is interpreted correctly, and that the reader would not venture upon another interpretive path. 4) Prof. Sant offers no notes upon these two verses taking for granted that his readers could interpret the text of the translation without difficulty, and that the text alone succeeds to communicate its message without props. He sees no reason, for instance, for introducing a note on the literary genre of diatribe. Sant did not feel the need to explain the meaning of orakli in verse 2 notwithstanding its ambiguity in Maltese, as we have seen. 3. Romans 3:3 4 Strictly speaking the writer of the letter offers no linguistic props that would justify isolating these verses as a subunit, a paragraph. Our delimitation is editorial and is mainly based upon contents and the syntactical forms used by writer. Paul s imagined interlocutor puts a general question (v.3) to which Paul reacts (v.4). The interlocutor raises the issue as to whether the negative response of some (τινες) Jews to the mystery of salvation as concretised in Jesus Christ would not tie God s hands as to the validity of the privileges mentioned in v.1. Paul excludes in an absolute manner such possibility on the logical level: µη γéνοιτο, Far be it! God forbid! Paul borrowed this expression from the LXX Greek. In the LXX it is used to translate the exclamatory hlylx (Gen 44:7) 40) and Paul makes relatively frequent use of it in his argumentation. 41) Paul opposes a strong refusal of the argument put forward by his imagined interlocutor who seems to suggest that the privileges of the Jews stopped being so since the Jews or at least some of them refused to believe in Jesus. For Paul such argument cannot in anyway work: God s fidelity is not measured by human fidelity this idea is basic in Paul s teaching on uprightness. God is always upright and will justify Israel (3:26). 42) 40) BDB, 321. cfr. also F. Blass & A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961), 384. 41) Cfr. A. J. Malherbe, M genoito in the Diatribe and Paul Harvard Theological Studies, 73 (1980), 231 240.
46 성경원문연구제 24 호별책 Next come two emphatic and contrasting statements where the subject θεòς; God, stands in contrast to the subject π ς νθρωπος all men, or every man if one sees Paul s statement being based upon human individual experience; there stand in contrast also the headwords in the predicate of the two clauses governed by the imperative γινéσθω, the adjectives ληθ ς predicated of God and ψεúστης predicated of every man. For Paul, God is necessarily true and all men are necessarily liars because this is declared as such by Scripture. The proof from Scripture though comes next. One should note that Paul is here making different uses of the biblical texts. In the first half of verse 4 he formulates his own thought making use of Psalm 116:2 while he creates ex novo a first half of what Paul wanted to appear as a bicolon. The whole bicolon is governed by the imperative γινéσθω. The second colon is π ς δè νθρωπος ψεúστης every man is a liar, which Paul found ready in the Septuagint version of Psalm 116:2. This general statement is made to stand as the opposite of a similar statement in the first colon: θεòς ληθης God is (surely) truthful. This is what Paul means to underline, the absolute veracity of God s word. The adverbial surely may be gleaned from the context, especially from the governance of the clause by the verb γινéσθω. Although Paul is using verbatim the Scripture text of Psalm 116:2 even in formulating these two truths, he seems to pretend that the bicolon is entirely his own formulation. As a matter of fact he introduces the citation formula καθẁς γéγραπται as it has been written, just after this double statement. How was verse 4a treated by versions and translations? Just a sample of modern translations which reflect identical strategies: By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written (NRSV); Certainly not! God must be true though all men be proved liars, for we read in scripture (REB) ; Jamais de la vie!plutôt, que Dieu soi vrai et tout être humain menteur, ainsi qu il est ecrit (NBS); Auf keinen Fall! Vielmehr wird sich am Ende heraustellen, daß Gott zuvertässig ist, die Menschen aber samt und sonders versagt haben!... (GNB). Even from this short list it becomes clear that the entire half verse 4a is being taken as Paul s text and words, without noticing if not in notes that the second statement is a verbatim reproduction 43) of the LXX 42) Fitzmyer, Romans, 327. 43) It is not a case of simple allusion (contra Fitzmyer, Romans, 328).
Translation Strategies and Annotation Policies in two Maltese / Anthony Abela 47 version of part of Psalm 116:2. In this case we have here another instance of a composite citation where only part is referred to the original writer while the entire citation is referred to only one author (another such case is Mk 1:2 3 44) ). Paul considers the whole text of verse 4a as his own because he composes the first statement about the truthfulness of God while he takes the second statement about the untruthfulness of mankind from Psalm 116:2 in its LXX version. The rest of verse 4 consists of the biblical text upon which Paul bases his theological construction; it is introduced by the citation formula καθẁς γεγραπται Οπως ν δικαιωθ ς ν τοις σου καì νικ σεις ν τ κρíνεσθαι σε Paul uses the citation to sustain his point that God is absolutely trustworthy. This citation is taken from Psalm 50:6 in its LXX version 45) ; Paul cites this text almost verbatim except for a slight change. In the LXX version the verbs of the πως ν clause are both in the subjunctive mood: δικαιωθ ς and νικ σ ς; Paul changes the mood of the second verb into the indicative future active, νικ σεις. 46) By this alteration Paul seems he wanted to ensure that the citation proves his statement in verse 4a by enhancing the declarative character of the citation. 3.1. Romans 3:3 4 in Saydon and Sant s translations (1) τí γαρ Peter Paul Saydon rendered this interrogative marker literally as if it was an interrogative statement: Xinhu mela? what is it then? The cluster xinhu is 44) Although it is defined as a citation of Isaiah, Is 40:3 is present only in verse 3; verse 2b is a mixed citation of Mal 3:1 and Ex 23:20; and it has its parallel in Mt 11:10/Lk 7:27 (Q tradition) Joachim Gnilka, Marco, trans. Gianni Poletti, Cittadella Editrice, Assisi 2 1987, 37 45) cfr. Fitzmyer, Romans, 328 46) One should note that according to Fitzmyer, Ibid., a number of mss have harmonized back Paul s text to make it agree with the LXX subjunctive mood reading. This would prove that this variant is to be considered of certain importance and it is a pity that the textual commentaries of Metzger and Omanson have not deemed it worth mentioning.
48 성경원문연구제 24 호별책 actually the personal pronoun hu/huwa he it which assumes this form whenever it is found in interrogative scenarios, and it is preceded by the interrogative pronoun xi what or the particle kif how in questions and statements? 47) Saydon combines xinhu to the adverbial mela then. These two lexemes are often combined to render exclamations that denote strong agreement or disagreement: mela xinhu! Of course! Saydon though inverts the order of the two lexemes to create a different effect: an emphatic statement though this expression is only loosely linked to the contents that follow it. Was Saydon s attempt at literally translating the interrogative τí γαρ; really effective? Do τí γαρ and xinhu mela behave in the same manner in interrogative contexts? The present writer has his doubts about this. Sant decided to lessically ignore this interrogative marker, and translates the main statement straightaway: X jimporta jekk xi w]ud minnhom ma emmnux? What does it matter if some of them have not believed? but here we are already on the first main question. (2) ε πιστησáν τινες The construction is basically a conditional clause 48) where the protasis has taken place while the apodosis cannot take place because of God s nature. In this discourse the author employs also word play. Saydon proceeds with his literal translation: Jekk x u]ud ma emmnux, jaqaw jista n nuqqas ta twemmin tag]hom jag]mel fierg]a l emiena ta Alla? If some of them did not believe, will their lack of faith nullify the faithfulness of God? Comments: i) The literality of Saydon s rendering of the text comprised choosing a rare word to render the noun πíστιν which in the context does not mean faith as it normally has in the NT and early Christian literature. 49) Instead πíστις in this context carries the meaning of faithfulness, fidelity and πíστιν το θεο where το θεο (of God) is not the object of the act of faith (as πíστις το νοµατι α το, faith in his name (Act 3:16; cfr., Phil 1:27) 50), but the subject of the act of faithfulness, refers to the faithfulness of God. This translator recognised both 47) Cfr. Aquilina, Maltese English Dictionary, I, 460. 48) For a discussion of such clauses in NT Greek one may consult Eric G. Jay, New Testament Greek. An Introductory Grammar (London: SPCK, 1958), 227 231. 49) Arndt & Gingrich, Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 668 670. 50) Ibid., 669.
Translation Strategies and Annotation Policies in two Maltese / Anthony Abela 49 the precise meaning of πíστιν as well as the use of word play. For this reason he chooses to translate this term through the word emiena which Erin Serracino Inglott, the compiler of one of the two current dictionaries in Maltese, described as not popular. 51) Serracino Inglott furnishes us with further several pieces of information: a) that the nominative singular reads amiena but he recognises Saydon s reading of the word as emiena. 52) b) The word derives from an Arabic root meaning loyauté, bonne foi, sincerité 53) c) The word does not derive from the same root as the verb emmen, to believe 54), even though the two words are homonyms and serve the same purpose as the Greek words πíστησáν, πιστíα, and πíστιν in the same verse. Paul is using word play to underline his point. d) The word emiena according to Prof. Aquilina means state of faithfulness, loyalty, fidelity. 55) The choice of this rare word instead of more common terms was dictated by Saydon s policy of keeping to only Malti safi pure Maltese : barrejt ukoll dak il kliem kollu ta nisel barrani, li da]al fil Malti bla xejn ma na]te[uh I avoided all those words of foreign origin that entered Maltese without there being a need for them. 56) Sant s exegesis of this verse is almost identical to that of Saydon, but Sant differs from Saydon in the syntax of his translation: the vocabulary chosen, and the sentence structure, as well as the exegesis of certain words in the Greek text. X jimporta jekk xi w]ud minnhom ma emmnux? Jaqaw l infedeltà tag]hom sa [[ib fix xejn il fedeltà ta Alla? What does it matter if some of them failed to believe? Will their unfaitfulness bring to naught the faithfulness of God? Comments: a) As one can see, Sant expressed the same thought but in two interrogative clauses. His is a much more dynamic translation of the text than Saydon s. b) Instead of the difficult and rare lexeme emiena employed by Saydon, Sant uses the more commonly used by Maltese speakers towards the end of the twentieth century, fedeltà, faithfulness derived from Italian, and thus according to Saydon, it is foreign and hence had to be barred from his 51) Il Miklem Malti, I, Klabb Kotba Maltin, Malta 1975, 29. 52) It seems that Saydon has written a short study on this word in the review Le]en il Malti 3/1938. 53) For this derivation Seracino Inglott cites Kazimirski de Biberstein, Dictionnaire Arabe Français, Paris 1860. 54) As Prof Aquilina suggests in his dictionary Maltese English Dictionary, I, 278. 55) Ibid. 56) Kelmtejn qabel Ktieb il {enesi, The Empire Press, Malta 1929, viii.
50 성경원문연구제 24 호별책 vocabulary, while Sant used the vocabulary employed by the people in its daily use of the language. 57) c) One should note that the Greek lexeme πιστíα in the text is translated differently by Saydon and Sant. Saydon rendered by the phrase n nuqqas ta twemmien tag]hom, their lack of belief or their unbelief, while Sant renders the same word by the term infedeltà tag]hom, their unfaithfulness. Who is right in this context? If as we have seen πíστιν in this verse needs to be rendered by faightfulness, πιστíα, which is seen by the speaker/author as the opposite of πíστιν, must be rendered as unfaithfulness ; hence Sant s translation is superior and more precise than that of Saydon in this instance. May be Sant wanted to correct Saydon in this text. (3) µ γéνοιτο One should note that this strong negative assertion is found at the end of verse 3 in Saydon and the beginning of verse 4 in Sant. It is possible that Saydon is following the form critical observation that µ γéνοιτο in the LXX usually translates the Hebrew yl hlylx, far be it from me! that is usually followed by a longer sentence (cfr. Gen 44:7.17). But in Paul himself and in some other representatives of the early Christian literature, this expression which is considered as a negative oath, is found in dialogue where it is not part of a larger sentence. 58) Therefore Saydon was not justified to change even if slightly the versification of the text in the standard texts. More or less the two translators rendered this strong expression in the same manner, with a slight difference though. Saydon rendered it in this way: Ma jkun qatt dan! May this never be. Sant leaves out the final demonstrative pronoun dan: God forbid! Saydon links this oath strictly to the context while Sant leaves in its general formulation. The present writer thinks Sant s formulation is stronger than Saydon s, and preferable. 57) But cfr. also Fitzmyer s comments in Romans, 327. This is how Sant described his translation in the introduction to the first edition of the MBS Bible: Fi ftit kliem din hi traduzzjoni [dida xjentifika fl ilsien tal poplu mirqum skond is seng]a letterarja, Il Bibbja, Malta Bible Society/Media Centre, Malta 1984, p. x [ In brief, this is new translation, done on a scientific basis, in the parlance of the people (and) worked out according to literary art ] 58) Cfr. verses 6.31; Fitzmyer, Romans, 327 328; A. J. Malherbe, Mê genoito in the Diatribe and in Paul, Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980), 231 240.